Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. State, 1827-6313.
Decision Date | 30 January 1935 |
Docket Number | No. 1827-6313.,1827-6313. |
Citation | 78 S.W.2d 580 |
Parties | TEXAS & P. RY. CO. v. STATE et al. |
Court | Texas Supreme Court |
W. A. Keeling, of Austin, and T. D. Gresham and M. E. Clinton, both of Dallas, for plaintiff in error.
James V. Allred, formerly Atty. Gen., and Geo. T. Wilson and R. W. Yarborough, formerly Asst. Attys. Gen., and Clay Cooke, of Fort Worth, for defendants in error.
In this case, the plaintiff in error, the Texas & Pacific Railway Company, claims title, in fee, to its right of way through Ector county. The trial court gave judgment for the state, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed that judgment. 52 S.W.(2d) 957.
In the year 1850, and for some twenty-odd years afterward, the western part of the state, for a distance of some five hundred miles, was wild land belonging to the state. The land in this region was unappropriated, unsurveyed, and uninhabited. In the year 1850, the matter of a transcontinental railroad constituted a subject for animated discussion in the halls of Congress and by the public generally throughout the United States. A number of routes for the road were under discussion. One of the routes was commonly referred to as the "Southern Route" which, in its course westward, would cross Texas. On February 9, 1850, the Legislature of Texas adopted the following Joint Resolution:
Acts 3d Leg. Tex. (1849-50) c. 124.
The federal government took no action in respect of the foregoing resolution, or of a transcontinental railroad through Texas, prior to March 4, 1851. By Act of Congress approved March 3, 1871 (16 Stat. 573), the Texas Pacific Railroad Company was incorporated, and given authority to construct and operate a railroad to the Pacific Ocean. In said act it was provided: * * *"Section 8. A little more than a year later, Congress passed an act changing the name of said corporation to "Texas and Pacific Railway Company." Act Cong. May 2, 1872 (17 Stat. 59).
The company contends that by section 2 of the Joint Resolution of February 9, 1850, a present conveyance of a right of way, in fee, across public lands in Texas, was effected. In this respect, the company contends that the last proviso contained in section 3, which reads: "And, provided further, that if the United States shall not have adopted this route for the construction of the road by the 4th of March, 1851, then, and in that event, and in that case, this resolution shall cease, and have no force or effect," modifies section 3 alone, and therefore did not affect the operation of section 2, as a present conveyance, in fee, of land to be subsequently identified. The contention is based mainly on the fact that each of the sections of said Joint Resolution, including section 3, begins with the words, "Be it further resolved," and on the further fact that in section 6 the term "these resolutions" is used. It thus appears, so the company contends, that section 3 was regarded by the Legislature as a distinct resolution, having no immediate connection with section 2, and therefore the term "this resolution," as used in the proviso, has no reference to section 2. We do not so interpret the legislative intent. It is plain from the caption, and the nature of the general subject with which the Joint Resolution deals, that the Legislature regarded the Joint Resolution as a composite whole, and that the term "this resolution" as used in the proviso in question means such composite whole.
In this connection it does not appear that, previous to the passage of this Joint Resolution, there had been any negotiations between the federal government, or any of its departments, and the state of Texas, regarding the construction of a railroad through Texas. The Joint Resolution appears to have been the voluntary act of the Texas Legislature, unsought by the federal government. Manifestly the Joint Resolution is, in its nature, but a proposal by the state to grant the rights therein specified, on the condition precedent that the route through Texas, for a transcontinental railroad, be adopted by the United States by March 4, 1851. Counsel contends that since the matter of adoption of said route would require such a vast amount of preliminary investigation and work—involving surveys, explorations, reports, etc.—the condition was impossible of performance within the allotted time, and therefore was unreasonable. Perhaps so; but the Legislature had the right to impose such a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Joslin v. State
...case are the same as those involved in Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. State, Tex.Civ.App., 52 S.W.2d 957, affirmed by the Supreme Court in 124 Tex. 482, 78 S.W.2d 580. Other than controversy over who has a prior right to an oil lease on said lands, which depends on whether the State has title theret......
-
Holubec v. Brandenburger
...parts of a whole; the bar is burdened by the proviso and may not be enforced independently of it. See Texas & Pac. Ry. Co. v. State, 78 S.W.2d 580, 582 (Tex. 1935). The burden therefore lay upon the Holubecs to establish both elements of the affirmative defense; the Brandenburgers did not b......
-
Anderson & Kerr Drilling Co. v. Bruhlmeyer
...general words will not include any of a class superior to that to which the particular words belong." See, also, Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. State et al., 124 Tex. 482, 78 S.W.2d 580, opinion adopted by the Supreme The Commission of Appeals, in an opinion adopted by the Supreme Court, in Gulf Pro......
-
R.R. Comm'n Of Tex. v. Gulf Energy Exploration Corp.
...Joint resolutions are statements of the legislature's intent as a body and are interpreted as statutes. See, e.g., Tex. & Pac. Ry. Co. v. State, 78 S.W.2d 580, 582 (1935) (utilizing the analysis for statutory construction to interpret a joint resolution). Resolutions granting permission to ......